Another problem with desert solar power plants is political - Europe for instance would become dependant on the middle east and africa for power, which after the past couple decades of oil politics doesn't look like a very attractive option.

Of course nuclear isn't much better in this regard - while we do have uranium deposits, we don't have any uranium mines, and hence rely on imports for nuclear fuel.

On the other hand, you can always use thorium deposits, use nuclear waste from other nations as fuel, pull uranium from seawater, etc.

>fusion development hasn't been stopped, especially not for fear of proliferation.

>Do you have any information about this subject that I do not?

do you have any information about fusion development being really seriously continued? It isn't proliferation risk alone that affects the development. It is also about projected cost of the produced energy. Any such facilities would be extremely expensive, typical nuclear plant expensive, and it doesn't look like it will have energy density higher than current nuclear plants as both are limited by the same factors, like cooling system engineering that transfers the energy from core to turbines. Thus the price of fusion energy may theoretically be cheaper than the price of fission energy only by the cost of uranium itself. Permits, regulatory approval process, etc... will not be cheaper. Such cost projections, together with the proliferation risk are the reasons that there is no meaningful development of fusion today.

With high voltage directed current lines, losses are around 3%/1000km. That's not so much.

Interesting, do you have any links as to how they work/how they are constructed/etc?